Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines Recommendations, Retrieval Rates, and Filter Complications in a Tertiary Hospital.

The present study evaluated the adherence to guideline recommendations regarding the indication for inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement, retrieval rates, complications, thrombotic recurrences, and mortality. Patients in whom an IVCF was placed between 2015 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively included. We considered absolute indication of IVCF placement if all the guidelines evaluated agreed on the indication, relative indication if only some guidelines recommended it and without indication if none of the evaluated guidelines recommended it. From the 185 patients included; 47% had an absolute indication, 15% a relative indication, and 38% had no indication. Filter-associated complications and non-removal rates were 12.4% and 41%, respectively. Venous thromboembolism recurrence rate was 17.8%, being filter-associated complications (24.2 vs 9.8%, P = .02) and thrombosis of the inferior cava or iliac veins (12.1 vs 2.6%, P = .03) more frequent in this group. The mortality rate was 40%, with higher mortality risk in patients with co-existing cancer. Previous major bleeding, filter-associated complications, and mortality were associated with a major risk of non-removal. In conclusion, the adherence to guidelines regarding the indication of IVCF placement is still low and IVCF complications are not negligible. This fact is of special concern in the elderly, comorbid, and cancer patients.

Hospital at home treatment with remdesivir for patients with COVID-19: real-life experience.

OBJECTIVES: Access and appropriateness of therapeutics for COVID-19 vary because of access or regulatory barriers, the severity of the disease, and for some therapies, the stage of the pandemic and circulating variants. Remdesivir has shown benefits in clinical recovery and is the treatment of choice for selected patients, both hospitalized and nonhospitalized, in main international guidelines. The use of remdesivir in alternatives to conventional hospitalization such as hospital at home (HaH) units remains incompletely explored. In this study, we aim to describe the real-life experience of outpatient remdesivir infusion for COVID-19 in a HaH unit. METHODS: We selected all the consecutive patients receiving remdesivir from a prospective cohort of 507 COVID-19 patients admitted at a HaH unit. Admission criteria included COVID-19 with a fraction of inspired oxygen requirement under 0.35 and respiratory rate under 22 rpm. Patients were daily assessed in person by a nurse and a physician. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients admitted at the HaH unit received remdesivir, 172 of whom were treated at home. Only 2% presented any adverse event related to the infusion, all of them mild. HaH saved 1416 day-beds, with only 5% of the patients requiring transfer back to the hospital. CONCLUSION: Remdesivir infusion in HaH units seems to be a safe and efficient alternative to conventional hospitalization for treating patients with nonsevere COVID-19.